Pokemon Sun and Moon General Discussion: Official Site updated to include every new 'mon

[Nym]

Is there really a standard Pokemon design?

I always thought that one of the charming things about Pokemon was that they could look like anything?

What about Zygarde 100%'s design makes it unfit for the Pokemon Universe?

I'm not trying to be rude, I'm genuinely curious. What exactly is that makes a Pokemon look like a Pokemon? I never understood when people say "That Pokemon doesn't look like a Pokemon."

To echo Water Mage, what defines what a pokemon must look like? There's been so much variety over the generations that I'd argue that there's no real basis for saying that something "doesn't look like a pokemon".

I think I understand.

Pokémon designs are, for most of them, not that complicated. There's a lot of Pokémon that look like something from the real world (animals, tools, etc).

If we look at Digimon, a lot of them look like giant big monsters with weapons on them (in general, I don't know many Digimons).

While Pokémon are more smaller, I'm not sure who is the bigger pokémon but most Digemon (when they are on the Champion stage) are taller than Arceus itself.

Edited June 11, 2016 by Nym

[The DanMan]

Using that logic, Blastoise doesn't look like a pokemon because it's got two giant metal cannons pointing out of its shell.

And the Gen IV flagships are too large and overdesigned to be pokemon.

Pretty much everything has precedence in the series; there's no perfectly uniform "Pokemon aesthetic".

[Magical Glace]

Thousand Arrows and Thousand Waves are moves we already know.

​Thousand Arrows also hit Flying Pokemon, and Thousand Waves prevent Pokemon from fleeing the battle.

Yeah, I know, that's why I pointed out Core Enforcer's name specifically.

[Nym]

Using that logic, Blastoise doesn't look like a pokemon because it's got two giant metal cannons pointing out of its shell.

And the Gen IV flagships are too large and overdesigned to be pokemon.

Pretty much everything has precedence in the series; there's no perfectly uniform "Pokemon aesthetic".

Well Blastoise is big yes, but it's nothing compare to Greymon plus his design is not that complex: A giant blue turtle with 2 water cannon.

But yeah, there's no example for a Pokemon design.

[Anacybele]

What about Genesect? It literally has a gun on its back. Although it's not a big Pokemon either.

[Nym]

What about Genesect? It literally has a gun on its back. Although it's not a big Pokemon either.

I was using weapons as an example, I only watched the season 1 of the Digimon saga so I really don't know a lot of Digimon.

My point was that Pokemon design are less complicated than Digimon since they look like more creatures or animals.

Digimon (in their Champion stage and above) are a little bit more complex, so they end up looking like big monsters with weapons or something.

[Magical Glace]

Tbh I think "It doesn't look like a Pokémon" is a bad complaint, really. They're fictional creatures, there's no real guideline for what the developers can be inspired by.

That's like saying we can't have a DQ monster based on a zebra or something because it doesn't look like a DQ monster.

It's just a really strange/fallacy-based argument. More specifically, it's a weird form of appeal to tradition.

[Nym]

Tbh I think "It doesn't look like a Pokémon" is a bad complaint, really. They're fictional creatures, there's no real guideline for what the developers can be inspired by.

That's like saying we can't have a DQ monster based on a zebra or something because it doesn't look like a DQ monster.

It's just a really strange/fallacy-based argument. More specifically, it's a weird form of appeal to tradition.

Hey, don't look at me, I didn't bring this.

I was only trying to understand, they can bring any designs that they want, it's Pokémon after all.

Edited June 11, 2016 by Nym

[Water Mage]

Tbh I think "It doesn't look like a Pokémon" is a bad complaint, really. They're fictional creatures, there's no real guideline for what the developers can be inspired by.That's like saying we can't have a DQ monster based on a zebra or something because it doesn't look like a DQ monster.It's just a really strange/fallacy-based argument. More specifically, it's a weird form of appeal to tradition.

It becomes even more contradictory when you realize that there is no "tradition".

Back in Gen 1 we had Pokemon that looked like normal animals, like Squirtle, Persian and Ratatta and at the same time there where more unique ones like Magnemite, Grimer and Voltorb.

I wonder what would be the fan's reaction if Voltorb and Electrode weren't Gen 1 Pokemon.

Considering how they are pretty much balls with eyes, and when they evolve, it simply reverses it's colors, a lot of fans would say that Voltorb and Electrode doesn't look like Pokemon.

And Grimer is pretty much a pile of slime with eyes and a mouth, so the complaints about Trubbish design being bad because it's just a trash bag with eyes, are pretty much pointless.

[Magical Glace]

It becomes even more contradictory when you realize that there is no "tradition".

Back in Gen 1 we had Pokemon that looked like normal animals, like Squirtle, Persian and Ratatta and at the same time there where more unique ones like Magnemite, Grimer and Voltorb.

I wonder what would be the fan's reaction if Voltorb and Electrode weren't Gen 1 Pokemon.

Considering how they are pretty much balls with eyes, and when they evolve, it simply reverses it's colors, a lot of fans would say that Voltorb and Electrode doesn't look like Pokemon.

And Grimer is pretty much a pile of slime with eyes and a mouth, so the complaints about Trubbish design being bad because it's just a trash bag with eyes, are pretty much pointless.

Tbh I really hate Grimer/Muk personally, moreso than the Trubbish line actually, since I don't really have an issue with Trubbish (Garbodor is another story).

But yeah, it's a very odd complaint and not really a logical one either.

Opinion: Gen I had the overall worst designs in the franchise with the exception of a few like Vulpix line and Eevee line.

[Tamanoir]

Tbh I think "It doesn't look like a Pokémon" is a bad complaint, really. They're fictional creatures, there's no real guideline for what the developers can be inspired by.

That's like saying we can't have a DQ monster based on a zebra or something because it doesn't look like a DQ monster.

It's just a really strange/fallacy-based argument. More specifically, it's a weird form of appeal to tradition.

The complaint were already there when Blaziken was first anounced back in Gen III. So yeah, it's quite stupid.

Hell, even Jinx and Mr Mime "looks like Digimon", due to their highly humanoid features (It's not Angemon level, but it's still notable). Jinx is objectively the worst design ever made (due to all the crap that came around it mainly, but the concept itself isn't really great.

[Nym]

Tbh I really hate Grimer/Muk personally, moreso than the Trubbish line actually, since I don't really have an issue with Trubbish (Garbodor is another story).

But yeah, it's a very odd complaint and not really a logical one either.

Opinion: Gen I had the overall worst designs in the franchise with the exception of a few like Vulpix line and Eevee line.

​I never bothered using a Trubbish since I thought he was thrash compare to other poison types.

​Agreed on the last statement.

[Water Mage]

Jinx is objectively the worst design ever made (due to all the crap that came around it mainly, but the concept itself isn't really great.[/color]

Actually Jynx is most likely based on Yama-uba also called Yamanba, a yokai which is described as always wearing a tattered red kimono, having whitish-blonde hair, control over snow, dark-colored skin, and large lips, traits which are evident in Jynx. "Yamanba" is also a slang for the extreme end of ganguro fashion, which involves bleached hair, artificial tanning, and heavy applying of brightly-colored lipstick.

So really, the controversy was because someone didn't bother to do research, and called Jynx offensive without even thinking twice.

[Magical Glace]

Also, speaking of Grimer/Muk and Trubbish/Garbodor, odd number gens to this point have all had two stage "blob" poison types, with Gulpin/Swalot as Gen III's. Anyone have theories on the possibility of another this gen?

[Honey Bunny]

Also, speaking of Grimer/Muk and Trubbish/Garbodor, odd number gens to this point have all had two stage "blob" poison types, with Gulpin/Swalot as Gen III's. Anyone have theories on the possibility of another this gen?

I can't really think of any blobby things that'd make sense for Hawaii. Then again Alola has koalas so I suppose Australia is an option too, but similarly I don't know of any australian blobby things.

Nevermind, I just looked up where blobfish live. They live off the coast of Australia. I really, really hope we get a blobfish pokemon now. It would objectively be the best Poison/Water, nay Water type pokemon ever.

Edited June 11, 2016 by Honey Bunny

[Vashiane]

I can't wait to read all the cool new Pokedex entries, now that I'm thinking about it.

Wonder if we'll get any spooky ones.

[Quintessence]

I disagree on Gen I having awful and the worst designs. I find them simple, yet original, authentic and appealing. AND imo Gen I is by far the one with the best designs, coupled with Gen II. Nowadays they have to put seven times the effort they required on Gen I, and come up with newer, maybe even odd and flamboyant designs. Hence why they're "traveling through the world" to implement diversity.

Regarding S/M:

- Koala looks good if psychic. Else, garbage unless it has something cool.

- isn't that Eevee?

- Aaaaand, not hyped about Zygarde x Transformers.

Looking forward to more info.

[Leona]

I really hope they don't make the Koala a psychic type. Real life Koalas are quite possibly the stupidest mammals in the world. Turning that into a psychic type just doesn't seem right.

I'd like to jump on the Iwanko hype train. That little thing is stupidly cute, and one of few rock type designs that appeal to me.

I'd say sheep.

I think I understand.

Pokémon designs are, for most of them, not that complicated. There's a lot of Pokémon that look like something from the real world (animals, tools, etc).

If we look at Digimon, a lot of them look like giant big monsters with weapons on them (in general, I don't know many Digimons).

While Pokémon are more smaller, I'm not sure who is the bigger pokémon but most Digemon (when they are on the Champion stage) are taller than Arceus itself.

I think the biggest Pokemon of them all right now is Wailord.

Whether a Pokemon looks like a Pokemon or not kind of depends on how its design is, not what its design is. I kind of say it's the quality of the work, because most Fakemon are badly made.

Pokemon also has a certain style, which is different from, for example, Digimon. Or at least I think it does, I'm not too familiar with Digimon.

[Magical Glace]

Wailord is "tallest" 47'07", or 14.5 m.

The heaviest is Primal Groudon, at 2204.4 lbs., or 997.7 kg.

[Quintessence]

Yeah Digimon has on its own a different style, with evolutions often tending towards technological elements, weaponry, etc.

Edited June 12, 2016 by Quintessence

[Leif]

To echo Water Mage, what defines what a pokemon must look like? There's been so much variety over the generations that I'd argue that there's no real basis for saying that something "doesn't look like a pokemon".

Is there really a standard Pokemon design?

I always thought that one of the charming things about Pokemon was that they could look like anything?

What about Zygarde 100%'s design makes it unfit for the Pokemon Universe?

I'm not trying to be rude, I'm genuinely curious. What exactly is that makes a Pokemon look like a Pokemon? I never understood when people say "That Pokemon doesn't look like a Pokemon."

To answer both of you guys, I guess the term "design simplicity" is what qualifies as standard Pokemon design. Even some of the over-designed Pokemon in Black 2 and White 2, i.e. White Kyurem, had a small amount of this "simplicity". You can still see that Kyurem is a dragon of sorts if you manage to glance over the turbo-engine tail. Complete Zygarde, or 100% Zygarde (don't know what name to use), doesn't have any level of simplicity at all. It's hard to identify where the head of the creature is (not sure of the head on the creature is a fake one or not since there's clearly a mouth and pair of eyes on the chest). All the multi-appendages surrounding its head really over-complicates things, too. It has reds, blues, greens, and whites scattered over the primary black color. It's a messy and chaotic design that looks like the some mech-suit from an anime. This would be the last thing I would associate with Pokemon.

Look at the Zygarde 10% form. It's a relatively simple in design (it's clearly a dog). I know some of you guys will say, "look at Magnezone!" "Look at Garbordor!" or "look at Golurk!" My response would still be the same: "their designs are simple enough to determine what creature or thing it was based off of." Zygarde Complete hardly resembles anything based in reality or from well-known myths.

I would have had all the Zygarde Forms be based on reptilian creatures. Zygarde Cell is fine as is, I guess. I would have had the 10% form resemble a Komodo dragon instead of a dog (lol what were they thinking?!). The Snake!Zygarde form is fine, though I would have trimmed the appendages along the base of the neck down just a tad. I would have made the complete Zygarde form resemble a European dragon (like the one from St. George and the Dragon). That's how I would have done it.

Edited June 12, 2016 by Leif

[solrocknroll]

Zygarde Complete and Zygarde 10% are absolutely based on myths. Their designs are self-explanatory.

Zygarde Complete is Hel. Zygarde 10% is Fenrir. They're purposely non-reptilian for that reason. The Complete forme makes sense as a Pokemon simply because of the Norse basis. It's like saying that Kyogre is not a Pokemon because it's based on Leviathan.

[Leif]

Zygarde Complete and Zygarde 10% are absolutely based on myths. Their designs are self-explanatory.

Zygarde Complete is Hel. Zygarde 10% is Fenrir. They're purposely non-reptilian for that reason. The Complete forme makes sense as a Pokemon simply because of the Norse basis. It's like saying that Kyogre is not a Pokemon because it's based on Leviathan.

I guess I didn't come to that conclusion since Jormungandr, though one of the children of Loki, isn't one and the same as Fenrir and Hel. It's a stretch to call Zygarde Complete, Hel, since Hel is, indeed, very feminine being the daughter of Loki. Zygarde complete has a very masculine design.

My reptilian design revamp was based on the assumption that Zygarde was Jormungandr alone.

I see the 10% being Fenrir now, but still don't see the connection with Hel. I guess you can argue that the humanoid shape correlates with Hel being depicted as a human woman, but the mech-suit look they went with was an awful idea.

I'd rather have the 10% and Complete forms be separate legendaries, because Hel and Fenrir being one with Jormungandr doesn't make sense when considering the mythology.

Edited June 12, 2016 by Leif

[solrocknroll]

I guess I didn't come to that conclusion since Jormungandr, though one of the children of Loki, isn't one of the same as Fenrir and Hel. It's a stretch to call Zygarde Complete, Hel, since Hel is, indeed, very feminine being the daughter of Loki. Zygarde complete has a very masculine design.

My reptilian design revamp was based on the assumption that Zygarde was Jormungandr alone.

I see the 10% being Fenrir now, but still don't see the connection with Hel. I guess you can argue that the humanoid shape correlates with Hel being depicted a human woman, but the mech-suit look they went with was an awful idea.

I'd rather have the 10% and Complete forms be separate legendaries, because Hel and Fenrir being one with Jormungandr doesn't make sense when considering the mythology.

I consider the more human-like shape to be big, but also the fact that it's comprised of two Cores if the anime has any indication. One of them is kind, while the other one is colder. I could see how that fits Hel's two faces, but it's a bit of a stretch.

It really wouldn't look that out of place if it was more than just one color comprising the bulk of the body. It makes it look more like a giant slab of something than anyone else.

[Tamanoir]

Actually Jynx is most likely based on Yama-uba also called Yamanba, a yokai which is described as always wearing a tattered red kimono, having whitish-blonde hair, control over snow, dark-colored skin, and large lips, traits which are evident in Jynx. "Yamanba" is also a slang for the extreme end of ganguro fashion, which involves bleached hair, artificial tanning, and heavy applying of brightly-colored lipstick.

So really, the controversy was because someone didn't bother to do research, and called Jynx offensive without even thinking twice.

There's many theories about it, I know.

But too be fair, they didn't thought bout exporting the franchise that much back then, so they didn't realized it could looks poffensive to some.

At first, they even refused to change the japanese name, and the translators had to insist and discuss for hours to chose a new name, and explain while some should be changed, because tehy could sounds offensive. (They're not all perfect, because after a whiel everyone is tired and you just accept whatever sounds OK.) It was one of the French translator for Gen 1 and 2 (Who I've heard an inerwiew some time ag) who explained to them they couldn't keep Zenikame (Squirtle) because it sounds liek the French Name for "Junkie", for example.

​Nowadays, Pokémon is a Worldwide event (I think it's also why they keep exploring new countries too.), so it's strange to think it wasn't always the case.